spot_symbols

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a read-only listing of 81 items with exchange and product names, which is the core behavior. It does not disclose whether the data is fetched live from 99qh or cached, whether it can fail, or whether the list changes over time—minimal but acceptable for a trivial no-parameter list operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds two precise details (count of 81 and output fields). Every clause earns its place with zero redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, from where, how many, and with which fields. However, it omits usage routing (how this relates to spot_prices) and data freshness, which are the clear remaining gaps. Adequate but minimal.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about the output content (exchange and product name) beyond what the empty schema conveys, which fully suffices for a parameterless tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('列出'/list), a specific resource (99qh spot products), an exact count (81), and the output fields (exchange and product name). This makes it clearly a symbol-listing tool rather than a price tool like spot_prices, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling to contrast with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like spot_prices, pm_spot_prices, and futures_prices nearby, an agent would benefit from a note like 'use this to discover available symbols before querying spot_prices,' but no such context is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.